Ellen Page is claiming to be transgender. What is going on?! by socialistrobot in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So assuming I haven't watched Star Wars I'm still expected to have an opinion or feelings about it? How about no.

Yeah, so helpful, lol.

Submit a brief about Bill C-6 (Canada) ( by materialrealityplz in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Listening to today's hearing now.

"We're not trying to ban legitimate conversations that explore who a person is. What we're trying to do is ban conversations that tell you that who you are is wrong."

-- David Lametti, Attorney General of Canada (Dec 1. hearing, 11:33)

So it's going to be criminal to tell someone they're not actually the other sex?

Canadian actor Elliot Page shares he is transgender by hfxB0oyA in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Amazing how they refuse to print her actual legal name as of yesterday.

It's like a game of charades where they have to describe "you know the guy in the movie with the thing and the other dude with the famous song"...

Ellen Page is claiming to be transgender. What is going on?! by socialistrobot in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"I dont feel male or female"

I never understood what this means. How do people come to believe this is some kind of feeling that you're expected to have? We don't say this about any of our other physical attributes...

Ellen Page is claiming to be transgender. What is going on?! by socialistrobot in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

She certainly doesn't go out of her way to look butch if that's what you mean—which is what I would expect from someone with gender identity issues trying to look the part.

I was wondering about the baseball cap myself: it's quite a convenient way to hide long hair... Other women like Sinéad O'Connor, Sigourney Weaver, and Britney Spears had the confidence to wear a short buzz cut—and yet still call themselves women.

I guess I'm curious to see what Page's gender performance will look like, or if she'll continue looking the same as she always has but then expect everyone to pretend she's a man. I don't know. I just can't take this very seriously.

Ellen Page is claiming to be transgender. What is going on?! by socialistrobot in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's also conveniently timed well with Canada's reading of Bill C-6 on criminalizing "conversion therapy" according to the newer definition including gender identity.

Page is Canadian and the CBC of course had the story covered right away.

I was watching The Queen's Gambit and immediately noticed the man posing as a female in the first episode. (Very minor spoilers.) by Nonime in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The whole orphanage backstory was a bit flat, just like this pointless hymn teacher. When it came to building up Beth Harmon, there was little there except for the drugs, the grumpy janitor, and the loneliness—save her one kind friend. Other than that, there was no depth to any of the supporting characters there.

So why this weird choice for the hymn teacher? I'm not sure whether they chose a man there just to add to the creepy vibe of the place. I thought, maybe nobody noticed that nun is a man... maybe they're harboring him for some strange reason we'll find out... but nope, nothing.

Homophobia, old school vs new. How has this happened? by Treeofthoughts in LGBDropTheT

[–]slushpilot 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, you're not crazy. 10-15-20 years ago seems to be about the right timeline. 5 years ago this new thing really took off.

most people, even if privately homophobic know what not to say

Learning what not to say is just basic politeness, but look who's ignoring & flaunting it now. Social justice has become public shaming.

How have we arrived where we are?

Unchecked "pride", perhaps. Amplified by the internet. It's transforming into something like racial pride now as things turn tribal. Not cool.

So I think to some degree we need to put the closet doors back on. Now hear me out—that doesn't mean hiding in shame. Everyone should be free to open up where and when they choose, but sometimes you need to just shove all your mental clutter and personal baggage in there and shut the door!

Honestly, why should anyone care who you live with or what you do in the bedroom in any public/professional setting. I do think we need spaces free from thinking about sex. I mean, rainbow flags at work & school seem benign, but what is it even saying or signaling anymore? So many things are now getting "queer" and "proud" where sex & sexuality don't even remotely belong!

Honestly I think most people don't care anymore, especially since the war is largely won and equal rights now exist in most places, and I'm afraid it's going to turn cynical. There might be a bit of backlash once the normal people back away and the only people left waving the various striped flags are the nutjobs.

Another dose of woque homophobia from trans ''man'' by [deleted] in LGBDropTheT

[–]slushpilot 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Remind me. Trans gay means straight, right?

They are not even hiding that they are MRA anymore: "Remove women-centric language when speaking about abortions and reproductive rights" by VioletRemi in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People formerly known as women.

Still known as, but formerly too.

Trump Is The Lesser of Two Evils (LONG) by StillLessons in politics

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So true. And when you can't tell the difference between a rant on national news media vs. a street corner, there is a problem.

AMA: Racism is a threat to public health by tseug in whatever

[–]slushpilot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What a load of empty platitudes—this corporate-speak word soup means absolutely nothing. I don't think they actually believe any of it, but they're trying to capitalize on it by saying the right things. I mean, just look at the first words of all of their bullet points:

  • Acknowledge
  • Recognize
  • Support
  • Encourage
  • Identify
  • Demonstrate
  • Present
  • Collaborate

Nothing in here about implementation or addressing any specific grievance: just "the racism" and spreading this belief ever-wider. They really have no idea what it is they specifically need to do, or what it is specifically that they have to address. No facts. No figures. Just words.

AMA: Racism is a threat to public health by tseug in whatever

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

1% is by definition a minority.

Trump Is The Lesser of Two Evils (LONG) by StillLessons in politics

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Rarely are Trump supporters permitted to present their case and argue the merits of it in any venue with popular reach

Merits? Some people's method of argumentatation disavows merit. Actually, some people disavow reasoned argument altogether.

And then they started reading Harry Potter in a threatening way! by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]slushpilot 19 insightful - 14 fun19 insightful - 13 fun20 insightful - 14 fun -  (0 children)

Trans Awareness Weekend? Trans Awareness Fortnight? Ginger Amputee Suburban Postal Worker Trans Awareness Hour?

We haven't addressed those yet, have we. Bigot.

Both: How do you feel about the push for people to state preferred pronouns? by peakingatthemoment in GCdebatesQT

[–]slushpilot 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Declaring pronouns is like saying you want to be identified according to the social expectations of a certain group of people. I am not a group of people, and I DO NOT want anyone getting first impressions & making assumptions about me based on that.

It's like saying people should speak differently when "ladies" are present—I don't want someone acting differently or hiding their true self from me just because I say up-front that I'm a "she/her" or a "he/him". Identities and relationships are negotiated, not declared—and that involves the subtle art of politeness. In a professional setting, avoiding questions about the personal like who the fuck you sleep with. I don't want to care.

Even just putting these pronouns out there is a signal to watch what you say around such a peson because they take this identity stuff seriously enough to put it in a professional email signature. It's like bright coloring on a venomous animal. If I got two email replies for a business inquiry, and one of them was signed with a "she/her", guess which one I would avoid.

If you wanted to respond to HR sarcastically, say "YES! And we should all state our race & ethnicity too, so people know when it's inappropriate to use certain slurs!" ...I mean, think about that for a minute and what it implies.

FFS these people are idiots. It's like HR has never dealt with actual relationships with people before... then again maybe they haven't: they do call them Human Resources after all. Mindless robots.

Time Magazine by AbominableAnon in propaganda

[–]slushpilot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

What's up with the red bricks? The USSR and its internationalist agenda fell a long time ago.

Who's actually calling for that stuff anymore? Oh.

BREAKING: Vancouver Judge orders surgeon to NOT remove breasts of transgender teen by purrvana in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm shocked this decision actually came out of the BC Supreme Court—after the opposite judgment in the case where the father was forbidden from preventing his 14-year-old daughter from taking hormones, and even discussing the facts of the case:

This new supreme court case is a good precedent, I do hope it reverses some things but I'm not holding my breath. It may yet go to court of appeals like the case above and get the bArBaRa fInDLay activist treatment there. (I think that's how she capitalizes it, lol.)

4Chan Explains the Four Seasons by Questionable in corruption

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


A total of 31 donors. Looks like about $1000 total. Hardly seems like fraud to me.

2 out of these 31 are for "Win Red" so if anything it only shows that the overwhelming majority of people here donated to democrats: why would they dispute the election if that's what it shows?

14,500 registered voters from detroit, all over the age of 100 by banned4rmblind in politics

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hey, don't let me stop you from finding more.

14,500 registered voters from detroit, all over the age of 100 by banned4rmblind in politics

[–]slushpilot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. Thank you.

14,500 registered voters from detroit, all over the age of 100 by banned4rmblind in politics

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, the spread is currently 147 thousand in favor of Biden. So either way these 14,500 wouldn't make up for that anyway.

14,500 registered voters from detroit, all over the age of 100 by banned4rmblind in politics

[–]slushpilot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One thing to keep in mind is, if these are just the "registered voters" is there a way to verify how many of these names actually voted? It's possible that some large proportion of these people passed away a few years ago and their names haven't yet been taken off the list here. So if the number is high for that reason then it could be within the margin of error for my estimate here.

A random sampling of how many did vs. didn't vote could give a useful ratio to show whether this was abused. I'd say if fewer than 15% of these names have a vote attached then it's less likely to be fraud.

(Based on 4300 estimated alive out of 14500 registered = 30%, then subtract some percentage for turnout: I can't estimate what proportion of centenarians are likely to vote, but it's likely to be less than the general population.)

14,500 registered voters from detroit, all over the age of 100 by banned4rmblind in politics

[–]slushpilot 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)


There are 324 million people in the USA (source: US census bureau, 2019)

There are 72 thousand centenarians in the USA (source: CDC, 2014)

Because that data from 2014 isn't current, let's be generous and double it for extra margin of error. Call it 140 thousand.

That gives us a national ratio of 0.04% — that's how many people out of the general population might live to 100 in the USA.

Now we can calculate that for the state of Michigan: population 9,986,857 (source: US census, 2019)

Result: 4,315 centenarians. And that's being quite generous with doubling the national average!

Are project Veritas trustworthy or not? by Horrux in conspiracy

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Some of their reporting includes very convincing video: the hidden camera stuff where people say things privately that they wouldn't be caught saying openly on record. I think that's an important kind of reporting that should at least be verified and discussed by other journalists to keep everyone honest: and I'm referring to both the person being exposed, as well as Project Veritas themselves.

Maybe the target is an isolated person and not evidence of a widespread problem, maybe that person doesn't have as much influence as they claim, or maybe there's actually a real story there. If the rest of the media did their job, we would be having that discussion and could put the things we're seeing into better context. I wonder why they're refusing to engage with any of their stories though... Even if the incident is an unprovable non-story, the fact that it's getting traction and the eventual debunking could be the story in itself. Hmm.

It's also interesting that Veritas claims to have never lost a lawsuit when they challenge for retractions.

So you asked if they're "trustworthy"... well that only depends on your own determination of trust, or the bias of the person you're speaking to about it. We have a lack of truly neutral and trustworthy news sources these days, so it's really your own decision now. There is no consensus.

The person you share the story with could have a totally different opinion of Veritas, and then decide not to trust you for even having considered sharing it with them... that's where things are at I guess.

I'm a white male who voted Biden. Why? by DoubleReverse in politics

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

they will win powerball

It's good to have hope. Without that, what are we.

I'm a white male who voted Biden. Why? by DoubleReverse in politics

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Since you say "The US if far below what the Paris climate accord was aiming for", what is the target metric you're referring to? I'm not saying I distrust you, but it's the first time I've heard this claim.

Now that the party that held authority over urban police departments also controls the White House, the anti-police demonstrations will stop. by wristaction in politics

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Totally. And they'll release those kids in cages finally.

GC: Is there any evidence that "femininity" and "masculinity" are not biological and should not be linked with sexual dimorphism? And are there any arguments against "beauty is feminine, not neutral"? by GoogleWasMyIdea in GCdebatesQT

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

yet you believe it exists and is rooted in biology,

Yes... but not all of it. Humans are sexed animals and we're not separate from our biology... how do you disagree?

that it's unavoidable women are weak little things with lady brains that make them like pink, dresses and barbie dolls

Now you're just putting words in my mouth: I never implied anything like that.

GC: Is there any evidence that "femininity" and "masculinity" are not biological and should not be linked with sexual dimorphism? And are there any arguments against "beauty is feminine, not neutral"? by GoogleWasMyIdea in GCdebatesQT

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

They basically mean "femininity" and "masculinity" are sexual dimorphism

Which one could argue, they kind of are.

Behavioural trends like aggression vs. submission are obviously dimorphic since it stems from physical stature. Then there's fashion, which was created to only highlight the dimorphism, making women look more delicate by comparison. Modern beauty standards, where women are expected to be slender and not too heavy/muscular, unlike men. It's too facile to say this is all "just" a social construct unanchored from any biological/evolutionary roots: one could argue that femininity is also somewhat of a defense mechanism under sexual dimorphism.

It certainly doesn't have to mean all those things need to exist in modern society, but in some situations you can't easily get away from them. We can say gender is unhelpful when it does things like hold women back and we should thus dispense with differentiation completely—but we still need language to describe "femininity" and "masculinity" in those cases where it obviously exists.

"Beautiful", is a term that itself more aligned with the feminine. "Handsome" is the term that is aligned with men.

I wonder if this is just something specific to our English language, or if there are similar differences in other languages. Words can easily change, or new words can arise: people used to "feel so gay" but it means something different now...

I think words like "handsome" include some nuance where they imply other specific qualities beyond just beauty. If you picture a "Hercules" archetype that someone might hold up as an example of male beauty, yes, "beautiful" could certainly fit—but you wouldn't say "cute" there—since that's a different quality of beauty.

[TRA apologist] Glenn Greenwald resigns from the Intercept following dispute over Biden story - The Washington Post by notgonnabenice in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting, thanks for pulling that together.

I almost forgot about Bradley Manning and it kind of makes sense that they'd have each other's backs over that whole story.

I do wonder if his views have opened up a bit more recently after seeing the TRA backlash first-hand.

[TRA apologist] Glenn Greenwald resigns from the Intercept following dispute over Biden story - The Washington Post by notgonnabenice in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Evidence he's a "TRA apologist"?

His recent interview with Joe Rogan and his article about trying to produce a documentary on Martina Navratilova and trying to defend her suggests otherwise.

Greenwald: Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored By The Intercept by Anon1 in censorship

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for posting this—probably the most important article of the year.

The whole Biden issue itself is secondary to what this episode actually reveals: how the media is actively coordinating to hide the truth from us and lying about their bias. I mean, it seemed obvious before but this just lays it bare.

Glenn Greenwald by slushpilot in LGBDropTheT

[–]slushpilot[S] 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If the enemy of your movement is Martina Navratilova—if that's somebody who you're declaring to be a hateful bigot, not welcome in decent company—who are your fucking allies!?

Will you sit in it? by Sw0rdofDam0cles in memes

[–]slushpilot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

41% will get it

There used to be a word for us… by Susiesmum in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is excellent.

I noticed in that one slide she qualified "heterosexual men" and I don't know exactly why it struck me. While technically obviously true, I feel like the adjective was unnecessary and undercut her point of being able to just say "women" or just say "men".

We all understand exactly what is meant without needing to be overly specific and getting lost in the weeds with contrived "not all men" arguments.

Any Gender Critical people here who are in the Art World? by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I guess I'm curious why you feel like you have to incorporate these issues into your art then. It's refreshing to even see anything that isn't consumed by it one way or the other.

Is it the social media that pressures it?

*Reddit Meltdown Watch* r/politics is currently melting down since ACB was confirmed by Tarrock in MeanwhileOnReddit

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So, I'm not even American but I find this whole episode fascinating. The party in power is only doing what is within their right (and mandate) to do by appointing a new justice, while the opposition is claiming she's some kind of cultist or a puppet without a brain of her own.

So I found a speech of hers, maybe it was posted here on Saidit, and thought okay let's see what she has to say for herself instead of reading interpretations and analyses. And you know what? She's a perfectly reasonable person who in 2016 hoped that whatever justice was appointed to replace Scalia would be someone who can look at the law impartially and even vote against their own personal belief when a reasonable interpretation of the constitution tells them so.

Less and less now I'm willing to trust even news articles or "trusted" sources to tell me how to interpret things & judge people. It seems the only way is to find out is to seek out the person's own writing or an actual video of them speaking for themselves. Anything else is just hot takes out of context.

Any Gender Critical people here who are in the Art World? by Kai_Decadence in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 18 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 0 fun19 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry to say, but "art social media" sounds like a hellhole. You've got edgy meme culture on one side, and pandering regurgitated tropes on the other. No room for nuance or actual art there.

I think you just have to do your own thing, on your own site, and ignore "social media" except for posting links to your work there and let it go.

Something like what Tatsuya Ishida has been doing with Sinfest maybe? Or what kind of message do you have in mind for your art, since you're bringing this question into it?

Sam Smith Interview on NPR by JulienMayfair in LGBDropTheT

[–]slushpilot 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

for some people, there's a major disconnect between how other people see them and how they see themselves

This is what I would technically consider to be at the root of dysphoria. What's really messed up is telling that person "nah, how you see yourself is valid—it's everyone else who is crazy".

New Hampshire homes: “Your address has been added into our database as a target for when we attack should Trump not concede the election.” by Chipit in politics

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When posted on the internet, that photo of the physical piece of paper with a staple torn out of it does psychological wonders though.

It doesn't have to be sent to your personal inbox where you can dismiss it as spam. You just have to see it, and think damn.

Twitter Goes Full Orwell, Censors All Topics "Likely To Be Subject To Election Misinformation" by Drewski in censorship

[–]slushpilot 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"Likely" As in, no due process?

"It's transphobic to say you wouldn't date trans people" by blackrainbow in LGBDropTheT

[–]slushpilot 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"I know you are but what am I."

It all sounds like immature schoolyard taunts to me.

If you refuse to acknowledge that transgender people are people & are able to get pregnant, then you must also acknowledge your complicity in hurting these people by advocating against their right to just be. by MinisterOfTerfery in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 14 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

refuse to acknowledge that transgender people are people

That's a weird straw-person.

Jessica Yaniv files human rights complaint against beauty pageant for not letting “her” compete by Chunkeeguy in LGBDropTheT

[–]slushpilot 23 insightful - 18 fun23 insightful - 17 fun24 insightful - 18 fun -  (0 children)

We're sorry.

New Hampshire homes: “Your address has been added into our database as a target for when we attack should Trump not concede the election.” by Chipit in politics

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's easy enough to dismiss a spam email as low-energy "foreign interference" hoaxers or whatever, but it's quite another thing to have an actual paper notice posted by an actual person to your actual house.

I mean, these might both still be hoaxes. But if that paper one exists, even as a hoax, it's far more threatening.

New Hampshire homes: “Your address has been added into our database as a target for when we attack should Trump not concede the election.” by Chipit in politics

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

They call these kinds of threats "disinformation"?

Or are they claiming these are hoaxes, and hence that's the disinformation? They're not very clear on that.

This just about sums it up. by AcceleratedWallops in politics

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yup, the other side must have let themselves go off the rails pretty bad to miss an easy pitch like this one.

WTH from Ovarit by EmptyCode in LGBDropTheT

[–]slushpilot 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That it was necessary kind of proves their whole point, doesn't it?

That time Hunter Biden got a six figure yearly retainer from a credit card company while Daddy Biden worked on major credit card legislation by Trulytimes in politics

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nothing new. Joe has been careful to avoid knowing anything about his son's business for a very long time.


Section 230 Is all about Legal Propaganda and you need to know about it. by mongre in politics

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The world clearly needs something more than this single American law to rule over all of us. Whatever section 230 actually says, it's clearly insufficient.

Something like an international GDPR for free speech on the internet... A Magna Carta for this new age.

CANADA GOING TYRANNICAL! 2nd "Total" Lockdown; ISOLATION CAMPS for "Refusers" by PresentableSonInLaw in WorldPolitics

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ha, I didn't actually read the article posted here... but I did read the letter from the "Liberal insider" from another source earlier. I don't know what to make of that letter if that's what we're discussing. It sounds like a bit of a nutjob if I'm being honest.

Still, there are valid questions to be discussed surrounding it.

"the intelligence community does not believe that" … by slushpilot in conspiracy

[–]slushpilot[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What an oddly convenient phrase that seems to appear quite frequently.

CANADA GOING TYRANNICAL! 2nd "Total" Lockdown; ISOLATION CAMPS for "Refusers" by PresentableSonInLaw in WorldPolitics

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's seriously just fiction

It's seriously not hard to look up from the gc.ca website:


Did you even watch the video of the Ontario MLA asking about it?


Roughly 1 in 4 American GEN Z identify as queer, either transgender or “genderqueer.” by BEB in LGBDropTheT

[–]slushpilot 24 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 0 fun25 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It goes beyond ignorance. "Very rare" they said.

This one will be offensive but I'll post anyway. by [deleted] in LGBDropTheT

[–]slushpilot 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They really don't see the irony of "inclusive" flags, do they.

The whole point of a flag is to signal your allegiance, and thus separate "us" from "them".

What is "boogaloo boys"? by slushpilot in politics

[–]slushpilot[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Which came first though? It seems like "big igloo" is just code for "boogaloo".

Basically I'd like to hear different sides on this. Or is the mainstream reporting accurate?

Almost by definition, I don't think the mainstream can understand internet memes. Hence I don't think they can report on things like this accurately.

SNL Shits on JKR and Whole Other Misogynistic Monologue by Anon123 in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Women's voices are a greater threat because they speak from experience. It's similar to when black people inconveniently speak out of step with current politics.

They must be silenced more strongly because they might have an irrefutably valid point and are not so easily dismissed.

When your toddler is already smarter than you. by jet199 in MeanwhileOnReddit

[–]slushpilot 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Especially when asking children. But when you really ask a child who's been trained on "they", they'll still know.

When your toddler is already smarter than you. by jet199 in MeanwhileOnReddit

[–]slushpilot 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

From the original post:

keep creating the world

People with a chip on their shoulder shouldn't be in positions with that kind of power. Unfortunately that's often where they end up.

When your toddler is already smarter than you. by jet199 in MeanwhileOnReddit

[–]slushpilot 14 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Abnormal is normal for that child.

I've heard cruelty defined as that which you cannot predict—it's when you get punished for something inconsequential, or that you had no possibility of knowing. When you do your best but have the rug pulled out from under you.

It's one thing to be corrected when you've done wrong in a way you can understand and learn from. But when your whole world becomes a minefield with no stable reality, that's a recipe for trauma.

It's why we don't punish people without the mental capacity to understand, or punish dogs for something they didn't do.

Unpredictability is also how you break people down so they become compliant to anything you say. Cults, totalitarian regimes, abusive husbands and the like have used cruelty like this to their great advantage.

It's A Clockwork Orange.

"BLUE!? Wrong again. The sunset sky is red! I'm so sorry but I must administer the electric shock again."

It seems to me that the UK is full of more feminists who do not subscribe so fully to transgender ideology than is the US, is this true and why? by Huyhuy in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are a lot of very good points here. I think another important one is around political sides & social pressure. With only 2 parties to choose from, the US is very obviously polarized and people feel like they have to show allegiance to their political tribe.

As a former American president once said, "you're either with us or against us"... Personally I'm very skeptical of that way of thinking—as if one's own side couldn't always benefit from some criticism!

So it seems having a nuanced view is not admissible. You wouldn't want to be "right wing" by disagreeing on one point of the platform.

Google Maps has added another tool to help keep everyone safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. by SabaMurtaz in technology

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They say a feature is only useful if it changes behaviour.

How will this feature do that? Easy to predict: people from high-risk areas will go shopping in low-risk areas.

Did they intend this to drive more spread when they designed it? Tech people have no brains.

Etsy bans 'I heart JK Rowling' items but carries 'F*** JK R' products by notgonnabenice in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

they prohibit any products that 'promotes, supports, or glorifies hatred or violence towards protected groups'.

Individuals are fair game though.

How does one register for "protected" group status vs. "unprotected" group? Who decides?

tif files pregnancy suit against amazon by WrongToy in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Yes the normalization (of kink/trans/etc) is unfortunate. It's also what brought us unnecessarily specific language like "cis".

And I don't mean to dismiss lesbian & gay sex to be clear—still counts as "sex" but somehow we still knew what we meant.

R/pics is intolerable. by PencilPusher55 in MeanwhileOnReddit

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't have "my side" in this and I'm not trying to advance anything politically for one or the other... Let me just say, I really don't think armed groups in the street are a good idea, no matter what they claim to stand for.

I'm just saying I would cut the guy some slack. When Gavin realized where things were headed he basically said, "you know what guys, this isn't worth it" and walked away—and I can respect that. Even though it couldn't help those in jail, it meant the remaining people in the group would understand that associating as a group any longer would be dangerous. I don't know what you think he should have done differently?

Bodyguards don't exist to start the violence, but sadly it seems bodyguards are a necessary thing in political speech lately. (I would always blame the side attacking before the side defending, personally.) We're at the point where if someone doesn't like an opinion today they feel entitled to make them feel the "consequences" instead of making a reasoned response or just ignoring it. We've learned that women speaking in Hyde Park need bodyguards now, too. How far tolerance has progressed...

I'm also not sure what you mean by "letting them rot in jail". Gavin's not the judge who can change that. I just think he realized the whole situation was out of his hands (including public perception) so the last thing he would want to be seen as, is the leader of an organized Anti-Antifa gang. Obviously for his own skin, but also for everyone in the group. As I remember, that court sentence was mainly because the Proud Boys were recognized as an identifiable organization—so officially disavowing and asking to break it up was at least the minimum he could do.

Even now, people argue about whether or not Antifa itself are organized or "just an idea, man"—but at least they're smart enough to stay cagey about that for plausible deniability.

Paradoxically, I also wonder whether taking away the Proud Boys' leadership & official status turned out to be counterproductive: it means they're now effectively the same as the anarchist groups on the other side and there's nothing you can point to, like an official website or a sanctioned speaking event to say, see this is what they actually stand for—in order to make your case against it. We can't actually know what these disorganized groups stand for today, but the people in them haven't gone away. It's a hydra now.

We've cancelled every remaining venue for controversial speech & debate so now we shouldn't be surprised at disorganized mobs having street battles and getting each other killed. None of this is really just about Gavin or the Proud Boys or Antifa, and I couldn't care less about who's right when these are the means we're left with.

Somehow we need to discover actually listening to each other again, especially where we disagree. So back to your point about claiming to know motivations: discourse only happens when you leave an opening that assumes the other side has good intentions. Anything less is dehumanizing.

tif files pregnancy suit against amazon by WrongToy in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 18 insightful - 5 fun18 insightful - 4 fun19 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Back in my day we just used to call this "having sex"!

Is it just me or does the term "PIV" literally sound like you now have to specify "Tab A Slot B" to explain how this works? I think we are doomed.

R/pics is intolerable. by PencilPusher55 in MeanwhileOnReddit

[–]slushpilot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Either way, it doesn't change that it was a joke club to start with. Then some guys got in a street fight & the identifiable ones got arrested. So he stepped away after it became a headline name and people gave it a purpose beyond what he intended.

I don't really care what his personal motivation for disavowing it was (whether he was saving his own ass). He didn't set out to start a gang or a militia, but it was a convenient way for those people to find each other, just because they also happen to believe the woke left has gone crazy.

Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies by GConly in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I obviously don't literally think that genderspecial men should go compete with actual physically/intellectually disadvantaged people.

But it's only the next step after the kind of advantage they're asking for when they demand to win races against women. I was taking that thought to its absurd conclusion. So, whether they want to identify themselves into the amputee category or the Downs category too, it's just more of the same and either way I have no respect for it.

R/pics is intolerable. by PencilPusher55 in MeanwhileOnReddit

[–]slushpilot 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Haha. The funny thing is, most of the Proud Boys probably think this misguided response is hilarious.

It was a joke club to start with. Gavin McInnes picked the name "Proud Boys" because it sounded campy and vaguely homoerotic. I mean, you have to do some goofy initiation with your bros and there's donuts involved or something... It was never meant to be taken seriously. He stepped away from it and said forget it once the media started saying oh, it's a hate group or whatever.

It's just a bunch of guys who want to piss and drink and be rude to show they're still allowed to do that, without being told what is still proper to think and say. I guess it's a bit like real-life 4chan. Gavin's an old school Gen-X punk: people just don't understand that attitude of sneering at conformist thought and telling moralizing assholes to shove off.

It's just that the moralizing assholes used to be the old conservatives and the church. Now it's the woke lefties that have gone off the deep end trying to tell everyone how offended they are they "can't even".

American Cyclist Quinn Simmons Suspended over Pro-Trump Tweet by WarmPotato in politics

[–]slushpilot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Guess I'm not buying a Trek bike.

I don't necessarily care about the US election or even have a say in it, but this kind of silencing is abhorrent.

QT/All: Why exactly should we accept non-binary people and validate their identity? by IceColdLover in GCdebatesQT

[–]slushpilot 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Right—but to your point, "non-binary" isn't even "trans". I don't think there is a "transmed" argument for non-binary unless we mean intersex.

Or else, what is this "non-binary dysphoria" and what is it rooted in.

GC: Why is sex binary and not a bimodal distribution in all sexually reproducing species? Don't hermaphrodites show that sex is not a binary in other sexually reproducing species? by Bootsinmyshoes30 in GCdebatesQT

[–]slushpilot 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Q1: Why don't hermaphrodites show that in other sexually reproducing species sex is not a binary?

Not a binary as opposed to what?

You can cut a worm in half and both halves will live... so why can't we do that with humans?

Hermaphrodites only show that sex is still binary—but that in some species both sex organs exist together. These animals inseminate each other, similar to plant pollination. It still takes two.

You won't find a hermaphrodite species that has male individuals separate from female individuals, just as you won't find a human that is both male and female in the same body.

Q2: Why is sex not a bimodal distribution?

This sounds like wordplay on what "binary" or "bimodal" means and conveniently mixing up what you want to apply these terms to.

Digital computers are binary. Digital logic is the purest mathematical example of a "binary" you can find. You can work out the theory in black & white on a chalkboard, and irrefutably show that there are exactly two states to work with. Your computer has millions of transistors in it that all work in concert using binary logic—which proves the theory in practice, beyond any doubt.

You can plot a digital signal on an oscilloscope. In a perfect theoretical world, it would show a square wave with 90° corners where the voltage switches from 0 to 1. But that's not what we see: if you look at the edge of the transitions, it ramps up and ramps down because of the quality of the physical device it's built on. It has some overshoot and waviness. It's noisy.

When you build a computer that works on physical things like the voltage levels of electrical signals, or reversing the polarity of magnetism, or the presence/absence of an optical signal, you can run into more severe imperfections. Does a bad sector on your hard disk which can't be reliably read as a "1" or a "0" because of weak magnetization imply that the theory of binary logic needs to be revised? Does it mean the concept of discrete "1" and "0" is actually a bimodal spectrum? Of course not.

(Yes I'm aware of quantum computers and qubits which operate on statistical probabilities between 1 and 0. But that's a different theory outside of digital logic: it has no binary axioms.)

Q3: how come they are not less of their sex for losing those abilities and are not of a different sex category after the removal of all genitalia?

I leave you with this:

Plato was applauded for his definition of man as a featherless biped, so Diogenes the Cynic plucked the feathers from a cock, brought it to Plato’s school, and said, “Here is Plato’s man.”

I'm not sure why you're so overly concerned with any of this. It's a bit obsessive to dwell on the rarest exceptions and abnormalities when everything else in your personal experience shows that sex is binary. Ask yourself how many people you've ever met or heard of that you honestly couldn't tell me were born as exactly one or the other sex, such that even their doctor couldn't tell. Then ask yourself who are these people arguing about whether sex is bimodal: you know for a fact their own sex is also just one or the other. They are looking to justify their social issues by trying to find a "gotcha" in biological exceptions that they don't even qualify as.

Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies by GConly in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have the greatest of respect for paralympic athletes.

Just not for people who only think themselves "special". I mean, the people we're talking about want to compete against women... it's really not very different if they were to say they feel excluded from the amputee category. Maybe it didn't come across so well, but I wanted to point out that absurdity.

Woman getting shopping = Threatening (to TRAs) by EndTheTransPandemic in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

woman=adult human female

That's so absurd, right?

QT/All: Why exactly should we accept non-binary people and validate their identity? by IceColdLover in GCdebatesQT

[–]slushpilot 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is such a key point that it warrants highlighting. +100.

actual diagnosed dysphoria related to their body (NOT to gender roles because you do not fix social issues with medical intervention)

That is also the same issue I have with so-called "non-binary". This identity isn't based in anything more than superficial clothes, make-up and silly pronouns. You could already do those things without expecting everyone to address you as a unique category.

Again, if you're legitimately intersex, then I'll accept that! But we know everyone is just playing dress-up and expecting us to pretend it's something more—it's such an embarrassing fad.

To the vintologi asshole by WrongToy in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Cool, man. Then what do you expect to find here?

“Anarchist” is not an insult by jesse21 in news

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes: but within the bounds of the constitution. Whether that means a 4-year term, or a vote of no-confidence from the opposition to call an election, or whatever it is your own country normally does. That doesn't mean the government can be removed "anytime". It's about following the rules that were agreed to.

“Anarchist” is not an insult by jesse21 in news

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, yeah. If you want to play along the "rules" of revolution & anarchy by taking down the government without due process ("anytime"), then sure.

I don't want that. Those are the people who promise utopia if they could only get their way... no thanks.

Petition in support of continued retail access to Abigail Shrier's book, Irreversible Damage by missdaisycan in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's one worth sharing with friends & family. Especially if they have daughters.

“Anarchist” is not an insult by jesse21 in news

[–]slushpilot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

they can fire them anytime

Or at least according to the rules of their country. I think the way we do democracy could certainly be improved, but I wouldn't throw it out in favour of "rules without rulers" or whatever other nonsense was in that article.

Outspoken BC father in transgender child case faces jail time for violating gag order by ekitten in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Shit. Again!?

I thought they settled that he still has his right to freedom of expression as long as he doesn't use names to identify the individuals in the case (mainly "AB" and "CD"). His name's not too hard to find, so what can they do to stop him...

According to the press release, this is believed to be the first time criminal contempt, as opposed to the more common civil contempt, has been brought against a parent in any family court in Canada.

Damn that true north strong and free! They know he's right, and they know the public would agree that he's right. They really want to silence him.

Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies by GConly in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The paper's ridiculous conclusion:

Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.

What this is trying to imply is so patently absurd that I don't even feel the need to entertain any of this... but while we're here let's parse what this one paragraph actually is (or isn't) saying:

  1. "there is no direct or consistent research suggesting [...] have an athletic advantage" If this is the key point of the conclusion then we can stop reading now: what a nothingburger. There is no such research because nobody believed it was necessary to point out the obvious. Here I go using common sense again: males have physical advantages over females. If you really wanted a study then just look at any sanctioned sporting results for male and female categories (race times, etc.), and see who is consistently faster/higher/stronger etc. We don't need research to tell us water is wet, but they seem to be using this to imply no difference exists just because nobody "directly researched" that a difference exists... (taps head)

  2. "at any stage of their transition" Translation: "upon self-declaration". Hahaha, right. See above regarding male and female categories to easily disprove this. Or are they saying that male physical advantage suddenly disappears upon identification of a "female brain"?

  3. "[no] transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage" If you omit the paranthetical aside "(or male)", what is the rhetorical intent of this sentence? We know females don't have an athletic advantage... but men do! Are they purposely writing it in such a muddy and confused way that we're supposed to pretend we don't know what they're pushing? It somehow says "female", but nobody's worried about females stealing advantage!

  4. "sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people" No they don't. Let me try using their technique: "There is no direct or consistent research suggesting exceptional policies that place restrictions on transgender people". The restrictions are the same for everyone: compete in your own category according to your biology, which is first by sex, then by weight class. These are the major determinants of fair competition. And no performance-enhancing drugs, like anabolic steroids. It's the same for everyone.

If you don't like that because you're so Special, they also have Olympics for you.

Refuting "biological sex is binary bc gametes" by vintologi10 in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

100% of the human population

What makes you think this is exclusive to humans?

Does anyone here know how to counter these people saying sex is not binary because of hermaphrodites and intersex, that binary sexes are "flawed human made taxonomies" and that "you can't see someone's chromosomes and genitals so sex does not matter"? by EverydayIsSad in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sex is binary, a few mutations doesn't mean otherwise.

Yup. I replied with very much the same point to the crosspost in s/GCdebatesQT

GC: What are your counter-arguments to these TRAs saying sex is not binary because of hermaphrodites and intersex, that binary sexes are "flawed human made taxonomies" and that "you can't see someone's chromosomes and genitals so sex does not matter"? by EverydayIsSad in GCdebatesQT

[–]slushpilot 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All of these points are completely irrelevant. They could be 100% scientifically true for all I care, but it does not matter.

When we're debating as a society about transwomen and the question of abolishing sex-based rights—it's never been about DSDs, or variations of chromosomes, or slugs. Those "gotcha" points are just cheap diversions.

These kinds of arguments work by finding the rarest of exceptions to the rule and turning them into the general rule, as if we should apply the logic of the smallest exception to everything that is not exceptional. It's dishonest.

This deconstruction technique is an important part of postmodernism: you take something that is normally obvious to everyone (common sense), then break it down into small details, and frame your narrative to position whatever detail you want as primarily important. Hence why you hear about things that are "just socially constructed"—it implies we can deconstruct and rearrange them, at will.

Intersex conditions are such a tiny proportion of people, it's not even worth arguing about. Keep your eyes on the big picture.

We're talking about men. All of them unambiguously male in their biology and behaviour. Or women, all unambiguously female, whether or not they menstruate, or have the capacity to get pregnant, or wear dresses. It doesn't matter: still women according to the same common sense we've always had.

I've not yet heard of an actual intersex person for whom any of these supposed "trans rights" are really an issue like they are for the Woke crowd. It's also important to remember that people with DSDs are not even trans: some might technically qualify, but I would assume most would actually prefer to have the natural genitalia & characteristics of their birth sex! These transgender pushers are just using people with legitimate sexual development disorders, and don't actually speak for them.

Ok, maybe I can think of one legitimate debate around these issues, which I think it can serve as a practical example: Caster Semenya. The question of someone who didn't know they were male running womens' races in the Olympics is a worthwhile discussion—but only for that individual because it's a very unique case. The important thing to remember is, you can't just apply the same logic to everyone else and pretend like it's the same thing.

I think I just peaked again. by guttersunflower in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because every woman thinks "I want to get pregnant so I can have an abortion".

The totally hypothetical person who would think that doesn't sound like they're thinking for themselves, and is an insane person trying to prove something to "all of them" out of spite.

Posts like this is why support for the lgb community will continue to decrease. by turtleduck23 in LGBDropTheT

[–]slushpilot 7 insightful - 7 fun7 insightful - 6 fun8 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

Children may see

That's why you need the bushes! Logic.

''Intersex is not a mental ilness, nonbinary is not a mental illness'' by [deleted] in therearetwogenders

[–]slushpilot 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

''Intersex is not a mental ilness"

No, it's not. But that's not who we're talking about, is it. Don't conflate different issues.

"Nonbinary is not a mental illness''

Well, it could be. It's certainly maladaptive.

The new Mozilla project: Help censorship grow by reporting "anti-LGBTQ+ content" by asterias in censorship

[–]slushpilot 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

So misguided.

I wonder why they are focusing on one platform, YouTube specifically, and whether that is actually the most effective media for what they call "radicalizing". Maybe it's the fact that video can show you things that are undeniable, unlike the twisting of words and omission of details from written articles.

Don't trust your own lying eyes, is basically what they're saying.

Reddit mods panic and delete 20% of posts on a thread about transwomen in women's prisons because the general mood is not supporting it. by GConly in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 38 insightful - 2 fun38 insightful - 1 fun39 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Just shows how much civil discourse is being manipulated online. We can't trust what is real public opinion anymore. This one's pretty obvious when it's a subject that every real person you know agrees on... but then think how many other topics are legitimately debatable but are quietly getting skewed for someone's personal agenda.

Apparently homophobic slurs are okay but god forbid you think I'm a woman by Lavalanche17 in GenderCritical

[–]slushpilot 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Young lady, I have no idea what you are trying to tell me.